Maybe you should ask God if you have permission to talk to His angels so casually. As for me and like I said, I have a check in my spirit about this.
Do Angels Have An Earthly Ministry Today?
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
Maybe you should ask God if you have permission to talk to His angels so casually. As for me and like I said, I have a check in my spirit about this.
Remember that angels are not bound by the same limitations we are on earth. Angels remain somewhat of a mystery, as all spiritual things do (even when we know of their existence). Indeed, angels are God's creatures made for service to Him, but it's unlikely that if you were to say "Pray for me, guardian angel," that that angel would respond "That's not my job." In fact, that's precisely what the angel is there for -- to help you see God's truth and reach Him.
Now again, an angel doesn't have this power -- they work through God. But we have reason to believe that angels can see us and hear us.
But if the concern is "We need to go directly to God," then verses like James 5:16, 1 Timothy 2:1, Matthew 5:44, etc. are wrong and we are doing something horrible by asking friends to pray for us. But if these verses are right, then because we also understand verses like Psalm 91:11, Hebrew 1:14, but probably most explicitly, Psalm 103:20-21 where the author actually wrote to the angels.
It doesn't follow that asking an angel to pray for you is evil.
Indeed -- sometimes Satan will even try to convince you that you communicating with God. Though God is more powerful and will ward off anything that doesn't belong provided you genuinely seek Him.
I used to hold issue with this sort of thing too because it felt like perhaps I was communicating with the dead. But as I got older, prayed more, studied Scripture more, and studied logic behind faith, it makes no sense that that is what it is. Angels aren't the dead. They are creatures of God, in service to God, to help those who are seeking salvation. They themselves pray, and their prayers, in worship to Him, are for those who they they are sent to help.
If asking an angel to pray for us is useless because they can't hear us (which makes no sense, but in any case...) then it is a waste, but not evil. If they indeed CAN hear us (which does make sense) and they do pray (which they do) then asking them to pray for us is not only not a waste, but a good idea, as we should always ask others to pray for us -- both our friends and those in the presence of God, like angels.
Well Lys, I have considered all that you've said and that check in my spirit is still there. Maybe it's an angel helping me to "see God's truth and reach Him" but more than likely it is the Holy Spirit making me feel cautious about accepting a doctrine about communicating with angels.
No harm done. No one is forced to ask anyone to ask for prayer -- we're encouraged, but what is ultimately important is that we worship God and always pray.
Glomung
Account Closed
Major, that makes no sense whatsoever. The two verses have nothing to do with each other.
I was pointing to some else's post of Matt. 18:10 in #17 and asked "why did they think that it was angels in view in that verse/
It seems clear there that the context is about lost people who Jesus considers children.
Is "snarky" when you are neck deep in sharks and there is no lifeguard on duty?
Galatians 1:8 & 9 is where Paul warns the saints in Galatia to not give angels any authority, or praise. There were many then who were incorporating angels into worship and Paul was directing them that if anyone did so, "They were to be accursed".
His message to them clearly speaks to those today such as Mormons, JW's and even Muslims who would make claims that angelic beings had the authority or ability to deliver messages different than what he and the apostles had already given to them so that the Word of God was there by changed.
Peter agreed with Paul in 2 Peter 3:17.....
"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability."
No one is talking about praising, worshiping, or even giving authority to angels. We ought to make that clear.
3 situations:
1: Pray for one another (reciprocal: a combination of 2 situations below)
2: Oneself pray for the other (one way)
3: Other to pray for oneself (one way)
IMO:
In Situation 2, seems there is no necessity that oneself knows personally the other, can even be for all people…
Situation 3: seems there is a necessity for oneself to know the other, at least a bit, personally
situation#1 for the other
1 Timothy 2:1 - I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
James 5:16 - Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
situation #2 for oneself
2 Thessalonians 3:1 - Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you:
Romans 15:30 - Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in [your] prayers to God for me;
1 Thessalonians 5:25 - Brethren, pray for us.
1: Pray for one another (reciprocal: a combination of 2 situations below)
2: Oneself pray for the other (one way)
3: Other to pray for oneself (one way)
IMO:
In Situation 2, seems there is no necessity that oneself knows personally the other, can even be for all people…
Situation 3: seems there is a necessity for oneself to know the other, at least a bit, personally
situation#1 for the other
1 Timothy 2:1 - I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
James 5:16 - Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
situation #2 for oneself
2 Thessalonians 3:1 - Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you:
Romans 15:30 - Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in [your] prayers to God for me;
1 Thessalonians 5:25 - Brethren, pray for us.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
After a general once-over of this thread I'd just like to make the observation that the differences people have seem to come from whether the person in question is a "Bible-only" Christian and whether they are not. The "Bible-only" people aren't willing to look outside the Bible. I think that is the reason we get deadlocked.
I hold umbrage to that, sir.
I was responding with my umbrage to "The "Bible-only" people aren't willing to look outside the Bible." quote. I was out of line to post ""non-Bible only" people do not give enough credence to the Bible" as was the other. I know from experience that you, Lys, give utmost credence to the Bible. So may I assume that you agree with, "Someone as closely connected with Christ as Paul and the other apostles were, should have the highest authority from their God breathed inspired writings."? If not, why?
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Sorry, but I feel that is an unfair statement to make. When one of the oldest denominations of Christianity gives equally strong weight to the Magisterium and sacred tradition AS WELL AS the Bible, it doesn't mean they have discounted the Bible in any way. It just means there are more sources to work with.
HOWEVER, if you have been raised as a Bible-only Christian I fully understand that you approach it from a completely different place. I don't say you're wrong and I don't judge you. All I suggest to you is that you see that there are two schools of thought.
I should have also posted to PLAR that, unless I misread, that it is indeed the position of many Christians that the Bible is the ultimate authority of God's Word, and many of the members here hold to that position. PLAR may have just been affirming that fact. I don't know.
I do hold the position that the Bible is God-breathed and should absolutely, by no means, be put aside as secondary. But I don't agree that it is the only ultimate source of God's Word. I also believe that the Church is apostolic and has held to sacred tradition, so it's not an either/or, but a both/and position.
BUT I'd like to try and stick to the subject rather than getting into yet another Sola Scriptura debate. We've had plenty of those.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Precisely what I meant. Nothing more or less than that.
Hey, we've had a lot of these discussions. I think we need to stick to the subject in understanding that not every Christian here follows an identical doctrine.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Sorry you have taken offense to this, but is it not factually correct?